Mechanical materialism and modern physics

[5] We will soon celebrate the fifth anniversary of the discussion with the mechanists about dialectics. Cde. Stepanov’s2 book, Dialectical Materialism and the Deborinite School, is truly a milestone, if not in content, then in form. It would be impossible to carry on the debate in the spirit of Cde. Stepanov’s book, in no small part because it exhausts every form of abuse acceptable to print. Whether or not a point of view is correct is not determined by the “strength” of the words employed in its defense, but by a methodological analysis of the content of a scientific problem within the historical development of science. Unfortunately, Cde. Stepanov’s latest article contains even less concrete material than his previous ones and, as we try to show, is not at all up to the standards of the modern science that Cde. Stepanov so earnestly defends. We believe that the main drawback of the book is that it carefully avoids every hotly debated problem of modern natural science, zealously defending against whatever attack by whomever against the law of energy conservation, which has long been accepted as ironclad in natural science, and which no one disputes. Cde. Stepanov replaces the discussion of new problems with curses and angry shouts. But swearing is a bad means of solving problems, and indirect proof that one is aware of the incorrectness of one’s own position: “Jupiter, you are angry, therefore you are wrong” (Dostoevsky 1900, 910 [TN]). We will not indulge Cde. Stepanov in his controversial methods, but will try to identify our point of view on the analysis of specific material in opposition to the mechanists’ point of view. Therefore, let us turn to an analysis of classical and modern natural science. From the outset, we will limit our task to the analysis of problems in physics.